Demented spots for the infinite universe (2nd Part) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

We mentioned earlier: the universe is expanding at a rapid pace. The new telescopic observation has appeared there to say if acceleration continued at such pace the expansion would perhaps never stop for a while; so then a never-ending universe might be inevitable for us. It indicates, no boundary has seen yet that can help a theorist to grasp the idea of a finite universe with better sensibility and acuity. However, according to this, a conference between general relativity theory and quantum uncertainty principle then appeared essential in theorists’ mind. This thought later persuaded them to build a theory of everything with great excitement. The theorists (from Einstein’s era) insisted them to think, a unified field theory (which can merge all force in a coherent way) is also essential if we want to solve the infinite reality mystery with pretty satisfaction.

Before Edwin Hubble, American astronomer Vesto Slipherhas already observed the redshift of galaxies in a cosmic space. He noticed light-spectrums coming from the different galaxies has changed and shifted towards red on their traveling moment in the galactic space. Redshift is relevant to measure the distance and velocity rate of galactic objects in the universe. Hubble’s observation then came with an inclusion that galaxies are now receding from us at a rapid pace. The redshift of light source indicates galaxies have achieved significant distance from each other. Universe-objects (stars, galaxies etc.) already have massive velocity proportion due to the distance, and they gradually got it as an after consequent effect of the Big bang. The consequences have pushed them exceeding the gravitational pole and go far away to each other. This marvel observation later came with new fact-finding questions:

How long time it (the expansion) of the universe will happen? As well, what geometric shape could be best fitted for it (the universe) at such expansion stage?

… All these assumptions are fecund to consider the universe infinite. No doubt, infinity sounds appealing to a mathematician, and the same word appeared disturbing for the physicist.… … …

Aforementioned questions led physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians pictured a probabilistic geometry of the universe regarding the problem of general relativity and quantum uncertainty principle altogether. They made it by taking account of Einstein’s assertionabout the relative motion of objects in spacetime geometry. His special theory of relativity added new insight in classical physics. It clearly said:

When objects are moving under the inertial condition either ‘at rest’ in (actually no object can stay in ‘at rest’ position because of its mass-energy acceleration) or a ‘consistent motion’ position, the laws of physics (if we consider Newton’s first law for reference) would remain same in there. Besides, the speed of light in a vacuum space (means the medium, suppose water or a glass of water) will be the same as well, so what the speed an observer travels to observe it.

The motion of objects in ‘inertia state’ remains unchanged until any change of acceleration in the objects has happened. If happen, it can make a significant difference to the relative motion and course of the objects in spacetime geometry. The story not ended there. Einstein added, an object which contained large amount of mass inside, it can create curvature in the space due to the massiveness; colossal amount of mass in an object can deflect its own trajectory in the space; even the trajectory of a massless light object (suppose the light source) can be deflected by this; means when light-source travels beside such colossal object its trajectory then take oblique instead of straight. Above all, ‘space’ is dynamic and it can go curvy by itself; the curvature of ‘space’ is possible without any presence of such colossal object what we’ve mentioned just before.

… The presence of agents in space-time can never be assumable until we’ve observed it. The universe is coming true when anybody observes it. Otherwise, the presence of things and the perception of it mean nothing to us. Maybe the universe has existed and expanded by infinite rate, or might we are living in a ‘closed universe; as Einstein believed, everything depends on the observer participants.… … …

Einstein did not consider the change of acceleration a primeval factor for his special relativity theory. Rather, he added relativity amid objects when they stayed in the non-accelerated (means unchanged acceleration) inertial state of motion. This insight was so powerful that it changes our perception and logical validity of ‘reality’ forever. How real things make interaction in the spacetime geometry (?). Newton faced it by adding ‘Force’ the landslide factor which helps things accelerated in the space; suppose the more mass of an object means the more force we’ve needed to accelerate it; thus, force changes the inertial state of things and make them real; and as well help the reality to perform. Let take a short journey once again in Newton’s laws of motion before going further to talking about Einstein’s relativity discourse.

Newton’s world is simple with robust pragmatic verification. He clearly illustrated his laws like Euclidean principle. The motion of objects is absolute (first law) in his geometry. They are staying in the myriad point of the straight line. If an object looked ‘rest in’ at some point of the line it will remain ‘rest in’ that point forever. Opposite, if another object looked moving with ‘uniform motion’ from another point of the straight line, then it will move forever. An external force until has come to change their inertial state for making a further picture in the straight-line geometry.

… Newton’s world is realistic with its grand simplicity and effectiveness, and with its Euclidean frame reference. This world ensured us, that is: Reality is absolute in its action because the motion of objects is absolute to its inertial condition; the place where the inertial motion is happening it is absolute, and the geometry (means the space) where objects have taken place is absolute as well. All this absoluteness is happening under the chain-bound relation of objects with force (gravity); it stabilizes them in the space with certainty.… … …

The first condition led him to the second; he exports ‘Force (F)’ a primeval factor for objects if we want to overcome the inertial state (means ‘at rest’ or ‘uniform motion’ state of the object) of an object, and want to make it dynamic for next acceleration. This is the basis of his famous formula F=ma, in where the force which acting in the object is equal to its mass on time of its acceleration. The bigger the mass, the bigger force we needed to accelerate it. For instance, a massive stone is staying on the Euclidean straight line steadily by agreeing Newton’s first law; if we want to move it from that steady point we need to calculate the total mass of that stone at first, and thereafter applied the same equal force to it for acceleration; only in this way it can move another point of the line.

The second laws of motion led Newton to think about the gravity as absolute force where every action between two interacting objects has the equal and opposite reaction, which help them to stay in reality by using their force against each other.

Einstein faced it in a different way. He added:

… ‘mass-energy’ as the driven factor for things. The proportion of energy means the proportion of mass and things’ appearance in ‘space’ depends on how much energy they propagate through acceleration.In the inertial state, the gross energy of things depends on their accelerated state and it defined their possession in ‘reality’ as well. On the other hand, the changing state of acceleration of things can change the space-geometry due to the massive energy they contained, and as well, the reality then looks different what we’ve used to see in the Newtonian space.

Reminder: the effect of mass acceleration in ‘space’ was a later addition; it led him to publish his groundbreaking work on general relativity theory. The time difference between two theories was a decade of the year 1905 to 1915. General relativity theory was potential for its strong philosophical notion. The theory appeared influential in course of time, and now we consider it one of the most powerful philosophical notions of our time. We can use it to understand the reality in all extent of human knowledge. On the opposite, special relativity theory constructs its notion by standing on the non-accelerated ground of inertial objects. In the inertial state, ‘reality’ has contained itself within the kinetic state of objects; object’s appearance and motion in that reality are not absolute but relatively kinetic in spacetime geometry with certainty.

The meaning is profound; it means an event appeared reliable to us when objects are subject to each other having ‘at rest’ or ‘consistent motion’ state. The reality of our daily life depended on the relativity of those two states. Objects are always fine-tuned in a space for their geometric dimensions (Height, Weight and Length etc.); because of that ‘reality’ of this apparent world looked dependable to us. Einstein kept Newton’s law intact, but he added a new condition that is:

This fine-tuned geometry of ‘reality’ does not depend on the absolute motion of objects; nothing is absolute in spacetime geometry; rather it depends on the relativity among them. Thus, we can say now, in the ‘consistent motion’ state an object is moving faster than another object which having an ‘at rest’ motion state against the ‘consistent’.

When a bus is running in the ‘consistent motion’ state, the passenger inside it doesn’t feel any movement of the running bus in his body. It means he is belonging in ‘at rest’ position if we compare his status to the bus, which is running at this moment at ‘consistent motion’. It happened due to the inertial reference of objects in spacetime geometry.

Both objects (the bus and its passenger) are present in such reality where their interaction has confined by the motion-inertia. The mass-energy of passenger is apparently static now subject to the uniform mass-energy acceleration of the bus engine. If the bus stopped with a sudden jerk the inertial reference will change instant; it will then start acceleration of passenger’s mass-energy; and as well, the passenger will then obliged him to adjust with the new relativity of motion.

… we are staying in a relative reality where one locality is always relative to the others due to the acceleration of the object. Reality depends on the accelerated state of the objects. If it stayed in non-accelerated inertial state, everything has appeared to us according to this state; if it accelerated in light speed, the reality will appear to us with different meaning and shape, though we cannot feel the difference if we do not observe it.… … …

Reality is acutely relative to the always changing ‘at rest’ state of things.John D. Nortoncorrectly mentioned it in his article:

“Beware of oversimplified slogans. Slogan like “It’s all relative.” or “All motion is relative.” That is not what we learn from Einstein’s special theory. It eradicates absolute motion. We learn that something can only be at rest if it is at rest with respect to something else. So the better slogan would be “All rest is relative.” [See: Special Theory of Relativity: The Principles by John D. Norton]

True, everything is moving in the universe, but the movement of an object has its own ‘at rest’ state compare to the ‘consistent motion’ of another. Thus, we cannot say the ‘at rest’ state of objects is absolute. Einstein didn’t deny Newton’s gravitational principle, nor did he refute the second and third laws in his special relativity theory. What he did discard the notion of absolute ‘at rest’ position of objects in the reality. He reordered the absoluteness through relativity where objects made interaction in spacetime geometry by pairing them in a relativity chain.

Space and time are pair-bonded in Einstein’s world; they are uniform with the relative motion of objects. We cannot measure the relative motion status of two objects by separated their ‘spatial referential frame’ to the periodic ‘referential frame of time’. When they accelerate their mass-energy for staying in the relative motion state, they are doing this by a certain length of time; and this time length is symmetrical with object’s ‘spatial referential frame’. Yes, time is not like a thing or object; Einstein per se commented: “Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.” Despite this, we cannot get an idea of the conditions where we are staying with mass-energy and acceleration; chain-bound to interacting each other through relative motion state; and obliged to conference with the ‘space’, which is as well dynamic as we are. Time appears there a fourth dimension for getting all this we needed to understand the reality where we are moving now.

Gravity means, at what extent objects could maintain their relativity in the inertial frame. Einstein thinks Newton’s laws work so far the mass of objects is relevantly small in the spacetime inertial reference frame, but the geometry will change when a massive object appears in the space. Means if an object contained a massive amount of mass, it can distort the space through curvature; and as well, the massive-mass object can take a different path to complete its trajectory due to the distortion of space geometry. The distortion of ‘space’ has made a profound significance to understand the reality of the universe.

Suppose if a light-source is coming straightway to us, it will take less time than the light-source comes along to us by crossing the curvy space. Reasonable, the geometric dimension of that reality (which we’ve observed through the transverse light source) is looking different to us. The same light source when travels beside the massive object where ‘space’ is curvy due to the massive mass-energy acceleration of the object and its impact on there, the trajectory of the light source then deflected because to the curvature. Means the light source will appear in our sight at a ‘transverse pace’ instead of ‘straightway’. Meaning: our experience on any observable locality depends on the trajectory of light-sources; locality, which we’ve observed through a transverse light source, it might have a difference to that which we observed through the straightway-light source.

Gravity played a vital rule in Newton’s world. We are living in a world where laws of motion act with certainty, where gravitational force of objects are played to ensure check-and-balance state in the ‘space’, and everything appeared certain to us. Newton’s world is realistic with its grand simplicity and effectiveness, and with its Euclidean frame reference. This world ensured us, that is:

Reality is absolute in its action because the motion of objects is absolute to its inertial condition; the place where the inertial motion is happening it is absolute, and the geometry (means the space) where objects have taken place is absolute as well. All this absoluteness is happening under the chain-bound relation of objects with force (gravity); it stabilizes them in the space with certainty.

… the light source will appear in our sight at a ‘transverse pace’ instead of ‘straightway’. Meaning: our experience on any observable locality depends on the trajectory of light-sources; locality, which we’ve observed through a transverse light source, it might have a difference to that which we observed through the straightway-light source.… … …

Einstein twisted Newton’s world reverse. He added following:

The motion of objects is just relatively staying ‘at rest’ state to each other. Absolute ‘at rest’ state is not plausible to any extent; so what the extents are, it is not possible for objects stayed in the ‘at rest’ referential frame for forever.

Gravity is not a simple force; rather it is a Natural Yield of mass. The mass of an object is as big, as big its effect on the spacetime geometry. Since a big mass object affected the space through curvature. It can band the space, can push it to change its trajectory, even twisted the squeezing geometry of the space as Black Hole does.

Newton’s ‘gravitational balancing’ work only in the locality where the mass proportion of objects is smaller. It doesn’t work in the locality where the proportion is massive, suppose a Black Hole.

The total mass of an object is its total energy. The universe is acted upon according to its energy proportion where mass is always equal to energy.

Gravity can propagate if objects are moving at light speed. Such acceleration propagates a massive amount of energy in the ‘space’, albeit the total propagation of energy means the equal propagation of mass in a space.

Space is not static and absolute as Newton think; rather it is dynamic with changing geometry. It can twist by itself due to the impact of variant force to it.

Space and Time are not separate. Two elements are the essential part of relativity dynamics. Thus, we cannot separate them by Space and Time; rather we should unite them by a phrase that is ‘spacetime‘.

Means we are staying in a relative reality where one locality is always relative to the others due to the acceleration of the object. Reality depends on the accelerated state of the objects. If it stayed in non-accelerated inertial state, everything has appeared to us according to this state; if it accelerated in light speed, the reality will appear to us with different meaning and shape, though we cannot feel the difference if we do not observe it.

This is the groundbreaking punch of Einstein, both in special and general relativity contexts. His general relativity where Einstein claimed ‘space’ itself could be curved in the absence of massive objects, it led us to reconsider the geometry of universe according to Hubble’s principles.… … …

… “Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.” Despite this, we cannot get an idea of the conditions where we are staying with mass-energy and acceleration; chain-bound to interacting each other through relative motion state; and obliged to conference with the ‘space’, which is as well dynamic as we are. Time appears there a fourth dimension for getting all this we needed to understand the reality where we are moving now... … …

Hubble’s law is simple in its principle. The redshift of the observable star depends on the distance of galaxies; the more distant among galaxies means more redshift of light in the space; means the galaxies have already got higher velocity and moves far away to each other. The pace could be looking slowdown only in a locality (suppose the neighboring Milky Way Galaxy where we stand now) due to the strong gravitational leg pulling among them. His simple law treated a breakthrough venture in astrophysics, teasing our so-called perception about the universe with a later addition of theories. It began with ‘expanding universe’; and now it tried to justify the possibility of a ‘multiverse‘, ‘holographic universe‘ along with string theory and so on.

If we consider redshift-frequency a vital sign to measure the present acceleration rate then we have to agree with this: despite the gravitational leg pulling of objects in the universe, no ultimate edge belongs in there; means, the expansion will not reduce in the future; it will continue and never back reverse to make the massive Big bang story for twice. The theory of expanding universe has gained popularity among physicist by opposing the static universe theory. Albert Einstein once mentioned the possibility of a static universe in his scientific paper. He imagined a ‘cosmological constant‘ (positive Black Gravity in the vacuum space; it withstands the infinite expansion of the universe, and helping it to expand in a finite level and then grasped it in there.) as de facto for the universe; which he believed, make the universe stable to its state.

However, he discarded this when Hubble has appeared in the scene with his expanding universe presumption. The cosmological constant then appeared lame to him because it cannot explain redshift and CMB with a plausible outfit. The story is not ending there. Einstein’s ‘cosmological constant’ gained interest when in late 90 a group of astrophysicists predicts: our universe has no empty space at all; a large amount of Dark Energy (68.3%) and Dark Matter (26.8%) covered the empty space and could be treated cosmological constant because their positive possession in the universe.

… This marvel observation later came with new fact-finding questions: How long time it (the expansion) of the universe will happen? As well, what geometric shape could be best fitted for it (the universe) at such expansion stage?… … …

The unknown energy was insignificant at the early stage of Big bang but gradually possessed the entire empty space in consequence of expansion. The recession and explosion of dying stars creates vacuum in the space, but the massive amount of extracted energy has possessed the vacuum by follows the law of energy conservation in the space; albeit this weak force contained almost Zero Value in a ‘space’ but it could take a turn by taking Non Zero value due to the slight curvature of the expanding universe; means it played a positive ‘anti-gravity’ rule and make the acceleration faster. That’s why we can treat this as a cosmological constant for the expanding universe in light of new physics (* not like what Einstein was said before).

The whole notion about the unknowable Dark Energy (and Dark Matter) provoked physicists to reconsider cosmological constant a problem for fine-tune universe, and as well they consider it hopeful because it can create finite maximum entropy in the vacuum space due to the slight curvature of the universe. They think it might slow down the current pace of universe, or might recover the scrambled information from the Black Holes’ event horizon surface for reshaping the images over again, as Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind tried to explain it in light of information theory that is:

… a particle’s energy which carried specific information (bit), it can never destroy or lost completely, even it grasped by the Black Hole, there could be a chance that lost particles create its imagery in the event horizon of a Black Hole before caught by it.

This assumption led them to build Simulated Holographic Universeby stands on the thermodynamic that: energy can transform but never destroy or lost forever.

… Reality is acutely relative to the always changing ‘at rest’ state of things. … Hubble’s simple law treated a breakthrough venture in astrophysics, teasing our so-called perception about the universe with a later addition of theories. It began with ‘expanding universe’; and now it tried to justify the possibility of a ‘multiverse’, ‘holographic universe’ along with string theory and so on.… … …

All these assumptions are fecund to consider the universe infinite. No doubt, infinity sounds appealing to a mathematician, and the same word appeared disturbing for the physicist. Despite this, Janna Levin was avid to start her career as a theoretical cosmologist because to her handsome background in physics, astronomy, and philosophy. Besides, she was passionate in abstraction due to her close association in fine arts. This creative association might influence her to retrace the possibility of an ‘infinite universe’ (which contained philosophical notion in a great extent) with a simple insight. She believed taking simple insight is the best way who wants to get a profound conclusion of his chosen topic. In her Cambridge days, the young physicist permitted her mind going deeper to examine the possibility of ‘infinite universe’ through some solid pragmatic evidence; later she added Black Holes and Gravitational Waves as besides to justify her simple insight plausible and best fitted amid the modern theoretical world.

This bravery and prudent continuity make her an interesting cosmologist along with her many colleagues in this field. She is an attractive talker on Black Holes, and indeed, sounds sensible when she raised her doubt to the possibility of an ‘infinite universe’. Cambridge days was literally effective for Levin because that it helped her to address the infinity issue with powerful insight, though it was very simple and realistic in approach. This was the time to recapitulate her thoughts concerning cosmic science and philosophy as a whole. The moment was soon coming alluring along with series of letter to her mother, and she labeled and published this well-written thought in 2006. This mind-blowing book “How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space” gained rapid hype among science readers after its appearance.

The book got readers’ attention due to its lucid clarity and writing style. Her mother Sandy was the first inspiration for writing such book by adding poetic style in scientific gesture. The reason is simple; Janna was trying to denote the Infinity complex by setting her personal position beside to her mother. Reasonable, which she was trying to deal with simple insight on those days, are not alien even to her mother. Our existence as a human being in the universe is finite by death and decadence, whereas the scientific notion in common tried to mention the universe infinite.

… Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind tried to explain it in light of information theory that is, a particle’s energy which carried specific information (bit), it can never destroy or lost completely, even it grasped by the Black Hole, there could be a chance that lost particles create its imagery in the event horizon of a Black Hole before caught by it. This assumption led them to build Simulated Holographic Universe by stands on the thermodynamic that: energy can transform but never destroy or lost forever.… … …

This opposition is enough to raise curiosity and doubt to the whole notion. Therefore, Janna started writing a letter, addressed her mother to the fact that —“I’m writing to you because I know you’re curious but afraid to ask.” Curiosity is a common fact for humans, but few among provoked them to goes deeper. Janna was concern that her mother as well curious to know, how she stands in the infinite space despite having the short-term finite body-mind in a finite space-time!

She believes, the source of all visible stuff and the kinetic invisible behind of this, all are harmonious in the finite reference of spacetime. Why? She tried to answer the question in her book, lectures, and talks. Tried to mention her doubt about the infinite theory of universe stands on the simple logic ground of life, that is:

“…we are the product of this universe and I think it can be argued that the entire cosmic code is imprinted in us. Just as our genes carry the memory of our biological ancestors, our logic carries the memory of our cosmological ancestry. We are not just imposing human-centric notions on a cosmos independent of us. We are the progeny of this cosmos and our ability to understand it is an inheritance.” [See: Janna Levin, How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite]

Janna Levin’s insight insisted her to deal ‘infinity’ according to the ‘finite erosion’ of things in space-time geometry. Her pragmatic sense provoked her to reconsider the popular theory of infinity in the finite facet; in where she is agreed to play with the possibility of ‘infinite universe’ in mathematics; because that, mathematics is the abstraction of real numbers by infinite divisions; but the world where everything existed with its eternal erosion and changeability, and still activate and faithful to the thermodynamics-chain, how they could expand infinitely to make the universe infinite by itself? She mentioned:

“I welcome the infinite in mathematics, where … it is not absurd nor demented. But I’d be pretty shaken to find the infinite in nature. I don’t feel robbed living my days in the physical with its tender admission of the finite. I still get to live with the infinite possibilities of mathematics, if only in my head.”

… Janna was concern that her mother as well curious to know, how she stands in the infinite space despite having the short-term finite body-mind in a finite space-time!… mathematics is the abstraction of real numbers by infinite divisions; but the world where everything existed with its eternal erosion and changeability, and still activate and faithful to the thermodynamics-chain, how they could expand infinitely to make the universe infinite by itself?… … …

Other than the mathematical assumption, nothing is in our hand that could make the possibility of ‘infinite universe’ true, she believed. Her statement brings forward to consider the philosophical problem again before to make sure about the infinite statement as true. The problems are:

The presence of agents in space-time can never be assumable until we’ve observed it. The universe is coming true when anybody observes it. Otherwise, the presence of things and the perception of it mean nothing to us. Maybe the universe has existed and expanded by infinite rate, or might we are living in a ‘closed universe; as Einstein believed, everything depends on the observer participants.

We will try to depict observer’s assumption and as well Janna Levin’s insightful addition to it in next chapter.… … …

… Space and Time are not separate. Two elements are the essential part of relativity dynamics. Thus, we cannot separate them by Space and Time; rather we should unite them by a phrase that is ‘spacetime’…

Post navigation

Published by

sohochari

Sohochari, a querist who like to read life larger than the book; little daydreamer to his faith; love philosophy literature and science but not with self-approved commonsense and appraisement and prefer rambling on creative ideas. Life is a river and you have to swim it unto the end.
View all posts by sohochari

Social Sharing

Transcreation

Hit_&_Run

8,998 hits

Sohochari Profile

Sohochari, a querist who like to read life larger than the book; little daydreamer to his faith; love philosophy literature and science but not with self-approved commonsense and appraisement and prefer rambling on creative ideas. Life is a river and you have to swim it unto the end.

... leaders of Israelite are narcissus. Jewish priests count others according to their own suffering. They think other human races hate Jewish because the amorphous God has chosen them as a preserver of true scripture and prophethood. They think Mount Sinai or Gabal Musa is their own property; other claimants have stolen it from the Jews scriptures, and they […]